The Windows 8 blog has a post about the improvements in Windows 8's installation process. "For Windows 8, our goal was to continue to improve reliability while also improving the installation experience and raw performance. Not only did we want it to be rock solid, but also faster and easier to use." Thankfully, the features us geeks like are still there.

So basically ngaio, you don't believe in paying for an OS. You view it as only lining someones pockets. Ironic that you suggest people be open-minded when your view is very close-minded.

Do you have any clue what type of deal governments get from Microsoft? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how many copies of their software is given away at no charge to places and people in need? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how important Microsoft is to the American economy, and thus the world economy as well? Seemingly not. Did you know that Bill Gates and Paul Allen both have committed vast amounts of their wealth to help others via The Giving Pledge?

You really come off as one of those 'Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is the Emporer from Star Wars' types. It's really unfortunate when a person is so horny for -fill in OS name here- that it blocks their view of reality for -fill in other OS name, or company here-.

I've said this before, ... I'm a daily user of both Windows and Linux. Each is great at certain things and not-great at others. Each caters to a different set of needs. The idea that a user _shouldn't_ select an OS based on their own personal needs, as you've suggested, is absurd at best. Windows isn't flawless and neither is Linux. Linux has it's own mess of problems like most other OS'es. The sooner you can come to terms with that fact, the sooner you'll realize you're trying to have an argument that can't be won by either side. And what's left? Just each users individual needs, ...exactly where it started and should have stayed in the first place.

So basically ngaio, you don't believe in paying for an OS. You view it as only lining someones pockets. Ironic that you suggest people be open-minded when your view is very close-minded.

I've never said that to anyone. And I don't actually know anyone who has said that.

Do you have any clue what type of deal governments get from Microsoft?

Actually I do. I've had conversations with Microsoft managers before FOSS software became the the force that it is today, and I can tell you they could easily come up with reasons why all governments should pay the same price. Times have changed.

Do you have any clue how many copies of their software is given away at no charge to places and people in need?

You seem so confident that the competitive threat of FOSS has nothing at all to do with that. It seems we'll have to disagree there.

Do you have any clue how important Microsoft is to the American economy, and thus the world economy as well?

Now you're getting into economics. That's fine. If you want to construct an economic proof that concentrating vast wealth in the hands of a few mega-companies makes all people on Earth better off, go for it. I look forward to reading it.

Did you know that Bill Gates and Paul Allen both have committed vast amounts of their wealth to help others via The Giving Pledge?

Have you seen kind of lifestyle that Allen leads, e.g. the astronomically big boats? Gates seems much more like a normal person. I have a lot of respect for Gates. He's done some excellent work.

However I will never support an economic system in which men like of any character -- good or bad -- have the opportunity to amass vast sums of incredibly concentrated wealth (it seems you do). It flies in the face of democracy and equality. I'd much rather have a country's development directed by governments and civil society through democratic means. I believe in democracy. Do you?

You really come off as one of those 'Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is the Emporer from Star Wars' types.

That's just silly, and frankly disappointing. I started out by saying I have Windows on my computer. I never said anything about Microsoft being evil at any time in this discussion.

It's really unfortunate when a person is so horny for -fill in OS name here- that it blocks their view of reality for -fill in other OS name, or company here-.

Is it is it possible to engage in a reasoned discussion without resorting to sexual metaphors?

I've said this before, ... I'm a daily user of both Windows and Linux. Each is great at certain things and not-great at others. Each caters to a different set of needs. The idea that a user _shouldn't_ select an OS based on their own personal needs, as you've suggested, is absurd at best.

Are you reading what I'm saying? I never said that. I said that choices around operating systems inevitably and inescapably have moral consequences. Do you understand that? Does that need to be spelled out any clearer? How many different ways of saying it out there? People can deny it all they want, but their choice of operating system is never purely technical. It is part technical, part moral, but habitual, part emotional, part convenience, etc. etc. etc.

Windows isn't flawless and neither is Linux. Linux has it's own mess of problems like most other OS'es.

Finally, something we agree on!

The sooner you can come to terms with that fact, the sooner you'll realize you're trying to have an argument that can't be won by either side. And what's left? Just each users individual needs, ...exactly where it started and should have stayed in the first place.

No! It is never about solely individual needs. People are social beings. We depend on each other for our survival. We always take each other's needs into account. Our software choices are meant to meet both individual and social needs. That's the point. Why is it so hard for you (and others) to agree to something this elementary and basic? None of this is rocket science.

I've never said that to anyone. And I don't actually know anyone who has said that.

Directly said, no. Implied, yes within the context of your comments.

Actually I do. I've had conversations with Microsoft managers before FOSS software became the the force that it is today, and I can tell you they could easily come up with reasons why all governments should pay the same price. Times have changed.

There's a difference between a persons opinion and a companies practice. In practice, Microsoft doesn't adhere to that.

You seem so confident that the competitive threat of FOSS has nothing at all to do with that. It seems we'll have to disagree there.

The reason something is done doesn't automatically outweigh the affect the act has. The only thing that matters is that they do, the why is completely irrelevant in this case.

Now you're getting into economics. That's fine. If you want to construct an economic proof that concentrating vast wealth in the hands of a few mega-companies makes all people on Earth better off, go for it. I look forward to reading it.

My statement neither said that, nor implied it. I was simply pointing out that were Microsoft to crumble tomorrow, it would have a very negative global economic impact. That's just fact. It's also the reason people look like idiots when they say things like 'I hope Microsoft burns in hell', 'I hope they crumble', and all the other ridiculous nonsense.

Have you seen kind of lifestyle that Allen leads, e.g. the astronomically big boats? Gates seems much more like a normal person. I have a lot of respect for Gates. He's done some excellent work.

Yes I have, as a matter of fact I have seen it first-hand. I don't condemn people for living extravagant lifestyles. I don't believe it's good for society and the evolution of humanity when vast power & influence (wealth is merely a tool to express power & influence) is concentrated. Allen is one of such individuals who has committed to using his power & influence for the betterment of the population, particularly those who are in real need -- just as Bill Gates has. These two are more alike than different.

However I will never support an economic system in which men like of any character -- good or bad -- have the opportunity to amass vast sums of incredibly concentrated wealth (it seems you do). It flies in the face of democracy and equality. I'd much rather have a country's development directed by governments and civil society through democratic means. I believe in democracy. Do you?

That depends.. Are you talking about the utopian idea of democracy, which isn't present in todays world? Or the masquerade of democracy we experience on a daily basis? There's a great quote I'm compelled to share, ...."None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

That's just silly, and frankly disappointing. I started out by saying I have Windows on my computer. I never said anything about Microsoft being evil at any time in this discussion.

Saying you use Windows doesn't mean or prove anything beyond simply that you use Windows. What's implied is the sum of a persons texts, not a single cherry-picked sentence.

Are you reading what I'm saying? I never said that. I said that choices around operating systems inevitably and inescapably have moral consequences. Do you understand that? Does that need to be spelled out any clearer? How many different ways of saying it out there? People can deny it all they want, but their choice of operating system is never purely technical. It is part technical, part moral, but habitual, part emotional, part convenience, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, ....and then there are those who simply make their choice based solely on their needs & wants. While you seem to be very passionate and emotional about an OS, you can't deny the fact that others aren't. As I said earlier, you want something to be true so you decide in your mind that it is regardless of whether reality agrees or not.

No! It is never about solely individual needs. People are social beings. We depend on each other for our survival. We always take each other's needs into account. Our software choices are meant to meet both individual and social needs. That's the point. Why is it so hard for you (and others) to agree to something this elementary and basic? None of this is rocket science.

It's not that we don't understand what you're implying, it's that we simply don't agree. You seem unaware of the fact that you're opinion is merely that. I think you expand some aspects and minimize in others to suit your beliefs. Certain types of people have a tendency to reshape reality to accommodate their views, rather than reconsider & rethink so their views work with reality untouched and as it is.

Remember, you're the one trying to convince people choosing an OS is a moral, emotional, and social decision -- and that choosing an OS based on your needs is "in the end not very dignified". You then try to support this claim by suggesting those who choose an OS based on their needs are like slave owners. Did you honestly think people would take you seriously after making such nonsensical remarks?